While I was listening to the “Interacting with Transmedia” hang out one particular discussion stuck out to me. That being the idea of when the creators have to let go and let the user take control. I agree with panelists that we as the creators for so long have a reluctance to hand over the reins to a piece and let the hive mind take over.
The idea of transmedia at its core is to let multiple media platforms contribute to our pieces. I think it also means that we as creators have to also relinquish some, if not most, of the control of the content of the piece. With this idea in mind I was interested by the Scribe Video Center and its mission in the community. Louis Massiah when he created the center was truly embarking on the first form of transmedia creation, he was handing the creative control of the films to those who had experienced them. This is what we need from transmedia to be successful, those that have the personal experience or ideals to contribute to our work.
Scribes put the power of the content into the hands of those who would be its direct consumer. Now of course they had the facilitators along the way to help guide the story, but it was the people who were in the center who put forth the information. Precious Places stories about Kappa Alpha Psi and it’s role in the community would have had a completely different feel to it had a creator not had resources from inside the community. Plus you could really get a sense of pride from the people when they told the stories of the house, its centrality and importance to the community. Scribe gave over its full crative control to the consumer, and because of that they received a far more passionate piece.
But it was the New Yorker article by Lee Siegel that caught the other side of this coin. That being the negative experience. When you let go of control of content you may get the overly negative users who add nothing but anger and vitriol. Siegel pointed out that most people are skewed towards giving a negative review mainly because it is easier to do. Handing over control of content to users brings the risk of all negative content that adds no value to the piece. Some negative views and comments are always needed, you have to show both sides of a story.
Good point about negative comments being needed to show both sides of the story. I’m always fearful of negative feedback about any project that I work on. I guess I never really thought about it as someone just sharing a different side to the same story.
There are two good points I think you bring up. The first is that we need to have the personal experience or ideals of a person who has experienced something for our work to be successful. This is where I think being open minded and flexible, and really listening to someone is important, and not just coming at them with what you think they should or will say. The second thing you pointed out is what Siegel said about negativity, and how it is easier to be negative. Could this possibly be because negative news creates sort of a spectacle? Or is it because of the old cliche about how misery loves company? In any case I agree with you that sometimes negativity is needed to show both sides of a story.
I have always thought about it this way; if some one agrees with you they will sit there nod their head and say “yes, yes this person is correct” and then do nothing more. If is the person who disagrees with you who is more likely to voice their opinion because it is a dissenting one, or they are simply just angry.
This is somewhat similar to what I posted about. In general, what is the inherent morality of story-telling? If the desire is to gain attention rather than to convey a message, then the shock and awe method is always going to be the easiest rout. In many ways, it makes me wonder if having the subjects as creators is actually the surest way of authenticity.
When I was working in newspapers, I developed an aversion to the term user-generated content. Part of that was how management saw user-generated content as a way to cut costs. They didn’t see it as a way to empower the voiceless; they saw it as easy content they didn’t have to pay for. Of course, snobbery was a factor as well; as an editor, I had problems because the submitted articles lacked “news value.” But the idea of producing something that the audience will make their own — that will take on a life of its own — is intriguing.
I agree that “user-generated content” can be both empowering and disempowering. While I think that Scribe’s intentions are noteworthy, it brings up the dialectic between process and product. On one hand, creating community media is empowering –on the publishing side of things, however, it can equate to sub-grade content that can detract from the importance of the story. How do we create empowering media without lowering the quality of storytelling, and opening the floodgates for negative vitriol?
Wow The inclusion of the New Yorker article by Lee Siegel adds a necessary layer to the discussion, highlighting the potential risks of negative experiences when creators let go of control. The acknowledgment that negative user contributions, often easier to provide, bring the risk of adding no value to the piece emphasizes the complexity of this dynamic.